Thursday, July 24, 2008

Three years after John Piper and his elders put the lid on the boiling issue of allowing unbaptized Christians access to church membership they have decided to revive the issue. John Piper has decided to preach three sermons on the issue. The first sermon was titled, "How Important is Church Membership?" and the second was titled, "What is Baptism and How Important is it?" I assume the third, not yet preached as of this blog entry, will be something like, "How Serious is it to Exclude Christians From Church Membership?"

Let me say at the very beginning that I have high respect for John Piper. His passion for preaching and his great love for Christ is not to be diminished. His ministry has been a blessing to many Christians. However, I believe his wisdom is flawed on this issue. To restate the issue, John Piper and his elders are arguing that if a person has been baptized as an infant and believes his baptism is valid, he should be not be denied membership into a baptist church (Bethlehem Baptist Church). They believe the issue of excluding a Christians from membership into the local church is of greater importance than the issue of baptismal correctness. Their premise is the local church should mirror the Universal Church. If a person is a part of the Universal Church he must not be denied membership into a local church.

Let me state just a few inconsistencies in Piper's reasoning and dangers in his position. In his first sermon he did a wonderful job in laying out the importance of the local church. He stated that church membership involves discipline, submission to the elders, and accountability. Submission, however, must include the acceptance of doctrine. We must understand that while the local church should seek to mirror the Universal Church, we must also understand that the local church will never be absolutely pure this side of glory. The local church does not perfectly mirror the Universal Church. This is why we have confessional statements and why we have associations of like-minded churches. A confession of faith states what a local church believes about the Bible. Local churches do not always share the same beliefs . Our church holds to a particular confession (The London Baptist Confession). We believe that our confession reflects the teachings of Scripture. We do not believe that the differing views of other churches have equal validity. This would be tantamount to relativism - that there is no absolute truth. While we believe that every believer has error mixed in with his theology we also believe we must stand upon what we know to be the truth. Trinity Baptist Church believes that Biblical baptism is to be administered to believers alone by immersion. A person cannot claim to come under submission to our church and at the same time refuse to submit to this baptism.

In his second sermon Piper correctly states that baptism is big, huge. He says, "When we talk about baptism we are not talking mainly about religious ritual. We are not talking about a church tradition. We're talking about Christ!" Baptism reflects the glorious Gospel of Christ. He states that baptism is "uncompromisingly commanded" by Christ, "universally administered" by the church and "uniquely connected to conversion." With these glorious statements about Biblical baptism one has to wonder how Piper can conclude that Baptism is optional for church membership. His position is that if a Christian is convinced that his infant baptism is valid he should be allowed membership and hopefully, at some point, come to an understanding of the truth. We must be absolutely clear here. A person who has been baptized as an infant HAS NOT been baptized, period. It doesn't matter whether he believes he has been baptized. According to the Biblical definition of baptism he has NOT been baptized. Piper makes two essential statements in his sermons. In his first sermon he states that church membership involves submission. In the second sermon he states that baptism is "uncompromisingly commanded" by Christ. If Baptism is uncompromisingly commanded by Christ then it is NOT improper for the local church to demand baptism as a prerequisite for church membership.

Piper's argument is that it is vile and heinous to exclude a Christian from church membership. I argue that it is more heinous to disregard the explicit command of Christ in order to add people to the local church. If Christ has commanded us to be baptized it is not only correct for our church to demand it, it is essential that we demand it. Baptism must be a prerequisite for church membership.

Monday, July 21, 2008

We all know the nursery rhyme, "Humpty Dumpty," the brief account of a man (or egg) meeting an untimely end after a fall from his perch upon a wall. We are given no information of how he fell. Only that putting him back together would be a most difficult task. There have been many different interpretations of this nursery rhyme, however, I'd like use it to make some observations concerning the current state of the family.

Whatever happened to the family? There was a time in our nation when the family was the bedrock of society. No matter what else was happening, the family stood as an unshakable source of stability for children; the place where needs were met and, most important, the place where the principles of morality were taught. Today, only a shadow of this God ordained institution remains and as a result our culture is on the brink of ruin. What happened? Who's to blame? Who is responsible for the great fall of the family from it's unshakable place upon the wall?

It is difficult to place the blame on one single source. Satan's resources are large. You might look to the spirit of rebellion that began in the 1950's and 60's, an attitude that turned away from anything that was traditional. The family of "Leave it to Beaver" was abandoned for what was described as "free love." Premarital sex and "living together" became the "in" thing to do. Today, many young people have turned away from traditional marriage. The consequences of these attitudes have been devastating as the illegitimate birthrate continues to climb and new cases of sexually trasmitted diseases continue to skyrocket. Even before the 1960's, however, the government was doing it's part to destroy the family. Through the operation of a welfare state the role of the father has been greatly diminished and his function has been given over to the state. And we cannot fail to recognize the effect Hollywood continues to have upon the morality of our nation. In the 1950's most television shows depicted traditional two parent families, but today this is not the case. Today there seems to be a clear agenda of assaulting the traditional family. There is also the power of the homosexual lobby that is continuing to promote same-sex unions as normal. With funding from corporations like McDonald's they are quickly changing public attitudes about what defines a family. The bottom line is, it is difficult to place the blame for the demise of the family at one single source.

So what is the solution? Can the family be put back together again? If it can it won't be by the power of the government. "All the kings horses and all the king's men" will fall short in putting the family back together again. I believe the solution rests upon the church. The family is defined by the Word of God. The family is strengthened as it conforms to God's perfect design for the family. The church must regain its voice and speak clearly applying God's Word to the hearts of men. Christian families must serve as models of God's design for the family. The King of kings can surely put the family back together again.